2017 (4) TMI 844

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , AC (AR) for the respondent Per: Raju M/s. Isha Engg. & Fabricators (IEF) and M/s. KTMS Engg. Pvt. Ltd. (KTMS) were engaged in the manufacture of articles of iron and steel. KTMS had obtained an order for erection of Fume Extraction System. KTMS needed parts of Fume Extraction System to be manufactured for which they placed orders with IEF. A demand of central excise duty was raised on IEF in r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t chimney shells coming into existence completely before being assembled into immovable property called chimney but not capable of being marketed are not leviable to central excise duty. Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of Artson Engineers Ltd. 2004 (169) ELT 36. In the said decision also it was held that chimney shells not being marketable cannot be charged to central excise duty. Ld. coun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peals were allowed solely on the ground that revenue had failed to establish that the goods were marketable. In both cases manufacture was done near the site where the immovable product was erected. However, in the instant case, it is noticed that IEF has manufactured the goods in their factory premises on job work basis as per the design given by KTMS. From these facts it is apparent that the goo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X